Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 30 May 2022 16:13:42 +0200
From:   Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc:     Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Phil Auld <pauld@redhat.com>,
        Zefan Li <lizefan.x@bytedance.com>,
        Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@kernel.org>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenz@kernel.org>,
        rcu@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/4] cpuset: Support RCU-NOCB toggle on v2 root
 partitions
Message-ID: <YpTRFotSs0UnMEJJ@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20220526225141.GA1214445@lothringen>
 <YpAHEt0j30vBw9au@slm.duckdns.org>
 <9e44bb00-955a-dbc6-a863-be649e0c701f@redhat.com>
 <YpAdSW8JXVPOoNJl@slm.duckdns.org>
 <20220527083018.n43nc73vuuzm5ixo@localhost.localdomain>
 <YpIwsiaY2IPK96WO@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20220530004049.GA1251147@lothringen>
 <YpR8PUlIraYE2+5L@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20220530105650.GA1257179@lothringen>
 <YpTDq6Z/+hp+CHwf@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YpTDq6Z/+hp+CHwf@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Precedence: bulk

On 30/05/22 15:16, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 12:56:50PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> 
> > > This is ABI, you can't walk back on it. I would suggest starting with an
> > > 'all feature' isolation. Only if there's real demand for something more
> > > fine-grained add that on top. Simple first etc.
> > 
> > That's actually my worry. If we start with an all in one ABI, how do we later
> > mix that up with more finegrained features? Like what will be the behaviour of:
> > 
> > cpuset.isolation.rcu_nocb = 0
> > cpuset.isolation.all = 1
> 
> Well clearly that doesn't make sense. I was more thinking along the
> lines of cgroup.subtree_control, where instead all features are enabled
> by default.
> 
> But only if there's a real usecase, otherwise there's no point in
> providing such knobs.

All features on/off knob + house-keeping sub-partition/mask seem to be
what isolation users I could reach so far (OCP mostly) would indeed like
to have in the future.